Rules are simple enough. The player that can be less competitive wins. Those that don't try lose because they aren't playing the game. Those that quit win but lose because they did the most work to win. Those that play the game can win but lose because they are competing.

Um, am I leaving something out?

My entry: "sigh"

Ok, so maybe the person that can come up with the best rules of how to actually win this game gets the 50k. You have to admit though, I did give you at least 5 minutes of enjoyment, hopefully.

To compete in this competition you need to post a reply. But in doing so, you lose straight away. Because you need to be the least competitive to win which makes you competitive and makes you lose anyway.

Okay, see? See?!?! See what I'm up against?!! "I abstain" - yeah, say what I said with just 2 words, and one of them "all fancy-schmancy"! How can I compete with that?
"42"? I can't beat that. I'm not even going to try. I'm only here for the donuts, anyway...
"Not playing" - sheesh...
Stoopid game. When's my bus get here?

By not being competative to win the contest, you are actually competing thus being competative right? So whom ever does the most to compete in the game (wich is exactly the opposite of what the want-to-be winner must do) will be the least competative in the contest..... that makes sense right?

I thought of it as.. the competition is to be the least competetive. Thus, those trying to be uncompetetive are competing the most. I decided to instead BE competetive. Honestly I don't know where this contest is going though =)

Instead of trying to win some awful contest could we instead do something more constructive. Maybe talk about the implications of hi-jacking threads or the negative effect people have when they can't stay on topic. Just a thought. Flame away.

As this contest is about who is less competitive, everybody tries to be less competitive.
I'm doing the opposite, I'm the most competitive one. I read hundreds of books to enter this competition and nobody will be able to beat my competition!
This just has to work! In the end I might be the least competitive by pushing myself in the wrong direction compared to you :)

I'm going to win because I'll merge my account with someone else and let them do all the work.
By doing this he can be competitive in this thread while I do absolutely nothing and be the least competitive!

The irony involved in this contest is that everyone is competing to be non-competitive. Those who are competing hardest are actually the ones who are trying to be non-competitive, but by trying they are competing more than those who are not trying to be non-competitive. Many are making competing claims of non-competitiveness, to the point where people have tried to broaden their claims to be as general as possible so as to show that they are the least competitive not only in this contest, but in everything. But then that is a lie. I vote that all lies be disqualified. I'm competing against this contest of incompetitiveness.

Hm, this contest is getting interesting. I'll raise 50k to a total of 100k to anyone that can come up with an answer to my original statement.

"Ok, so maybe the person that can come up with the best rules of how to actually win this game gets the 50k."

LeadenClaw was just a gnat hair away from winning it but didn't complete the thought. Someone else mentioned the only real way to win but didn't have LeadenClaw's logic included and then posted *another comment* and nulled his whole entry.

Max, there are no 'best rules of how to actually win this game'. I win. It's a simple as that. No competitiveness, no competeting with others, just me winning. You might as well just send the 100K to me now.

To be the least competitive, we need to find the person who was the least inclined to compete (Definition #2) and this can be correlated directly to the effort put in by a person. The person who put the least effort, is the least competitive

Looking at this, it is obvious that anyone who has submitted a post is automatically disqualified as they have put effort into writing something, and thus were competitive.

The next group of people to be considered are those who have read the post (or the title of the post itself), but have not written any submissions. They are disqualified from winning because in the act of reading about the competition, they have specifically chosen to not answer, and since the nature of this competition is to be un-competitive, they have put some effort into being uncompetitive (by choosing not to answer) and have thus been (slightly) competitive.

Based on these assumptions, the only logical conclusion is that the least competitive people are those who have no idea that this competition existed in the first place.

Going even further, by examining the definition of competition:

The act of competing, as for profit or a prize; rivalry.

it can be assumed that anyone who has ever signed up for CB, is implicitly aiming to obtain $CB and is thus trying to earn the prize money from this contest. So, every member of CB has tried to earn $CB, and thus has implicitly put effort into winning this contest to get $CB whether they were aware of it or not, and hence were competitive.

The only conclusion is that people who do not play CB are least competitive people, and thus only people who do not play CB should be awarded the prize. However as soon as they sign up to claim the prize, they have put effort into obtaining the prize, and hence are ineligible to win the prize.

In conclusion, nobody can win, because as soon as they claim the prize or attempt to collect the prize, they become ineligible to win the contest, and hence must forfeit the prize.

"Based on these assumptions, the only logical conclusion is that the least competitive people are those who have no idea that this competition existed in the first place."

This must be wrong. If you have no idea of the competition, even if you are competitive, you can't compete because you won't know how or where to compete. This statement is wrong because it automatically assumes that they are uncompetitive, when all it really describes is that the person lacks the appropriate knowledge.

My earlier post was unclear. So I'll tell a story to illustrate how one might solve the issue. A wealthy man dies. He leaves a will behind that says one of his two sons will inherit all of his money. He stipulates that the two sons will have a horse race and the money will go to the son with the slowest (least competitive) horse. The short answer is the sons switch horses and race the other's horse. By winning with the other brothers horse his own horse loses and he wins.

I am going to compete after all, but I am going to compete for novice. I am going to fight and dig, and put all the effort I have to give, for novice. I'm not competing for myself, I am competing for novice, and I am going to win for novice, so just send all of the winnings to novice, because no one has any chance of beating novice with me competing for him.

Nice entries. We sure are in a pickle, huh? I really want to give out a prize but I can't let this contest go forever. Will someone please definitively answer the only question I care about. How does a person or entity (wink wink) win a competition by being the least competitive? Fix your logic a bit, you know who you are, and I think you may win this. Also, remember what I said about MERGERS!

Well, heck, novice had no idea that I was going to compete for him, so I think that would be the way to do it. He's not competing at all, because I am doing it for him without his prior knowledge. He may not even know that I am competing for him now, for that matter. You can't be any less competitive than novice is being, with me competing for him without his knowledge. You just can't compete with that level of non-competitiveness, and that seems to be the only way to be completely non-competitive. So novice should win, because he isn't competing in any way.

So, the rule to win would have to be to get someone else to compete for you (a merger) without your knowledge (or any effort on your part), so you could compete without competing.

Unfortunatly BM, Nov has posted in the contest, so knows about it. I am on the other hand posting for Sutekh. Who heasn't been to this thread and knows nothing ofthis contest. :)

so;

Well, heck, Sutekh had no idea that I was going to compete for him, so I think that would be the way to do it. He's not competing at all, because I am doing it for him without his prior knowledge. He does not even know that I am competing for him now, for that matter. You can't be any less competitive than Sutekh is being, with me competing for him without his knowledge. You just can't compete with that level of non-competitiveness, and that seems to be the only way to be completely non-competitive. So Sutekh should win, because he isn't competing in any way.

So, the rule to win would have to be to get someone else to compete for you (a merger) without your knowledge (or any effort on your part), so you could compete without competing.

You know, I thought about competing for Sefton or Sut for just that reason - I was afraid that choosing novice would leave a loophole for someone to be even less competitive. But novice made me laugh, so I chose him... :P

make it where who ever responds 110th wins thats not hard at all thats just lazy but u can only enter post a comment and the 110th comment whens it can be random or on subject i think that would be fun and not hard at all but be sure to get ppl to make donations because the more donations the higher reward

Actually its pretty simple. You can't. Everyone trying one way or the other, directly or indirectly, is defeated by some angle of logic. Unfortunately, I was the automatic winner of this contest before it even began- on grounds not even present in the rules of the contest- that of winning by my pure awesomeness. Any attempt at me being competetive large or small has no relevance to my victory. This is not a self proclamation, but the utter truth of the matter. For the original poster to have let this contest carry out so far when its fate has already been decided, that is truly cruel to all of you.

I...can't believe it. Someone had it (actually two) but both entries had mergers that posted....that doesn't mean you can repost without the logic and just pick someone else. You have to do the whole thing in one shot.

Well then, fine! Grant has no idea that I am going to compete for him, so I think that would be the way to do it. He's not competing at all, because I am doing it for him without his prior knowledge. He may not even know that I am competing for him now, for that matter, because he hasn't posted anything in "who knows how long". I don't even know the last time he logged on. You can't be any less competitive than Grant is being, with me competing for him without his knowledge. You just can't compete with that level of non-competitiveness, and that seems to be the only way to be completely non-competitive. So Grant should win, because he isn't competing in any way.

So, the rule to win would have to be to get someone else to compete for you (a merger) without your knowledge (or any effort on your part), so you could compete without competing.

What you are describing in this contest is best explained through an analagous riddle, of sorts:

"Two brothers wanted to race a course,
To see which had the slowest horse.
Since neither wanted to spur his mare,
What must they do to make it fair?"

The answer, of course, is for each brother to race the other's horse. This is a very old riddle that was once popularized by the marvelous game Betrayal at Krondor. It has many different versions, some involving an old whispering man, some involving camels, some involving a desert. The concept is the same, though.

That's just the irony of a non-competitive competition...Woot!!! I actually won a contest! Thanks Max! And thanks Grant, for your unbeatable non-competitiveness! I'll split it with you if you ever log on to compete! :D

This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001q3Q">Who can be the least competitive competition</a>